(01-08-2018 04:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: 12 pages and we have it all boiled down to the fact that one group thinks winning the AAC was impressive enough and one group that doesn't...

Which is why ice skating judges are no more valid than than a school declaring itself national champion after finishing a season as the nations only undefeated team. One is based on the opinion of ice skating judges---the other is based on objective results. I used to think we'd really made significant progress in the college football post season---lol...then I realized we really haven't changed much at all. Its all still just based a poll. Worse yet---we are now using a smaller sampling of opinions to create our final poll (which in the era of "big data", means we have actually have taken a step backwards with respect to the sophistication and accuracy of the polling information we use).

In an interesting note---Im actually kinda hoping 'Bama wins tonight. If Alabama wins tonight---it means that 50% of the time in the CFP era, the last team selected into the playoff field won the national championship. That would suggest that nearly 50% of the BCS era champs (that we all currently accept as "official") very well may not have prevailed in a 4 team playoff. So when I hear arguments that 4 is enough and 8 makes no sense--Im forced to ask----How many 5, 6, 7, and 8 seeds might have won had they been involved? My guess is---based on what we have seen in the CFP era, teams from those bottom 4 seeds would probably have won more often than many think.

Georgia is a 3 seed. If we used the BCS, it would have been OU/Clemson again for the championship.

(01-08-2018 04:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: 12 pages and we have it all boiled down to the fact that one group thinks winning the AAC was impressive enough and one group that doesn't...

Which is why ice skating judges are no more valid than than a school declaring itself national champion after finishing a season as the nations only undefeated team. One is based on the opinion of ice skating judges---the other is based on objective results. I used to think we'd really made significant progress in the college football post season---lol...then I realized we really haven't changed much at all. Its all still just based a poll. Worse yet---we are now using a smaller sampling of opinions to create our final poll (which in the era of "big data", means we have actually have taken a step backwards with respect to the sophistication and accuracy of the polling information we use).

In an interesting note---Im actually kinda hoping 'Bama wins tonight. If Alabama wins tonight---it means that 50% of the time in the CFP era, the last team selected into the playoff field won the national championship. That would suggest that nearly 50% of the BCS era champs (that we all currently accept as "official") very well may not have prevailed in a 4 team playoff. So when I hear arguments that 4 is enough and 8 makes no sense--Im forced to ask----How many 5, 6, 7, and 8 seeds might have won had they been involved? My guess is---based on what we have seen in the CFP era, teams from those bottom 4 seeds would probably have won more often than many think.

My guess is we'd need a 16-team playoff to know with 99% certainty that the team that "would have" won the playoff had they been included was in fact included in the playoff. Even 8 won't do that.

That said, there's no question that the 4-team format has removed all doubt that the winning team really was the most accomplished team. Couldn't necessarily say that with the BCS. But if you can beat two of the four best teams after already having a great season, there's no doubt you earned more on the field than anyone else.

That's why we'll never see the AP vote for someone different than the CFP champ, unlike in the old poll days where splits were common, and it even happened once with the BCS.

Ohio St. was the most accomplished team in 2014, but TCU didn't get a chance to play those extra 3 games. They ended up 3rd, just behind Oregon. Interestingly they ended up 2nd, just ahead of Oregon in 2011.

(01-08-2018 07:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote: My guess is we'd need a 16-team playoff to know with 99% certainty that the team that "would have" won the playoff had they been included was in fact included in the playoff. Even 8 won't do that.

It will if the 8 seed gets knocked out in the first round say 4 years out of 5.

AttackCoug has hit on a good talking point for the expansionists--if the Committee cannot reliably judge 1 from 4, (50% failure rate), why do we trust them to judge 4 from 5?

Equilibrium is established when there are N playoff teams, and no realistic argument that the N+1th team deserved a shot at the championship.

(01-08-2018 04:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: 12 pages and we have it all boiled down to the fact that one group thinks winning the AAC was impressive enough and one group that doesn't...

Which is why ice skating judges are no more valid than than a school declaring itself national champion after finishing a season as the nations only undefeated team. One is based on the opinion of ice skating judges---the other is based on objective results. I used to think we'd really made significant progress in the college football post season---lol...then I realized we really haven't changed much at all. Its all still just based a poll. Worse yet---we are now using a smaller sampling of opinions to create our final poll (which in the era of "big data", means we have actually have taken a step backwards with respect to the sophistication and accuracy of the polling information we use).

In an interesting note---Im actually kinda hoping 'Bama wins tonight. If Alabama wins tonight---it means that 50% of the time in the CFP era, the last team selected into the playoff field won the national championship. That would suggest that nearly 50% of the BCS era champs (that we all currently accept as "official") very well may not have prevailed in a 4 team playoff. So when I hear arguments that 4 is enough and 8 makes no sense--Im forced to ask----How many 5, 6, 7, and 8 seeds might have won had they been involved? My guess is---based on what we have seen in the CFP era, teams from those bottom 4 seeds would probably have won more often than many think.

My guess is we'd need a 16-team playoff to know with 99% certainty that the team that "would have" won the playoff had they been included was in fact included in the playoff. Even 8 won't do that.

That said, there's no question that the 4-team format has removed all doubt that the winning team really was the most accomplished team. Couldn't necessarily say that with the BCS. But if you can beat two of the four best teams after already having a great season, there's no doubt you earned more on the field than anyone else.

That's why we'll never see the AP vote for someone different than the CFP champ, unlike in the old poll days where splits were common, and it even happened once with the BCS.

Well, to be fair--back in those days #1 and #2 rarely actually played one another--so split championships could more easily occur. That was the whole point of the early versions of the BCS (like the Bowl Coalition).

(01-08-2018 04:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: 12 pages and we have it all boiled down to the fact that one group thinks winning the AAC was impressive enough and one group that doesn't...

Which is why ice skating judges are no more valid than than a school declaring itself national champion after finishing a season as the nations only undefeated team. One is based on the opinion of ice skating judges---the other is based on objective results. I used to think we'd really made significant progress in the college football post season---lol...then I realized we really haven't changed much at all. Its all still just based on a poll. Worse yet---we are now using a smaller sampling of opinions to create our final poll (which in the era of "big data", means we have actually have taken a step backwards with respect to the sophistication and accuracy of the polling information we use).

In an interesting note---Im actually kinda hoping 'Bama wins tonight. If Alabama wins tonight---it means that 50% of the time in the CFP era, the last team selected into the playoff field won the national championship. That would suggest that nearly 50% of the BCS era champs (that we all currently accept as "official") very well may not have prevailed in a 4 team playoff. So when I hear arguments that 4 is enough and 8 makes no sense--Im forced to ask----How many 5, 6, 7, and 8 seeds might have won had they been involved? My guess is---based on what we have seen in the CFP era, teams from those bottom 4 seeds would probably have won more often than many think.

It's important to understand what infuriation is actually telling you and it isn't telling you that the BCS wasn't accurate.

The BCS and CFP are simply telling you who is best at different times.